It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I recommend to EVERYONE to read that link. I can't believe that your arguement is so weak as to have post it. shots, I recommend that you TOO reread that link. It's proving MY point, not yours. :shk:


How so??? I posted it only to show that the IRC visits ever 6-8 wks I realize the rest of the story relates to what some human rights group gibberish nothing more most of which has just been alleged and not proven I might add. Next time I will make sure I do not use one that contains and HR issues if that will make you happy. I also used it because it was current by date so you could not say well that is old and ask me to furnish more current info so I saved you that step




You poo-poo the degredation that these people have been SUBJECTED to and equate it to some foolish VOLUNTARY college initiation.


But I do not think it is degredation while you do and No it was not voluntary it was mandatory if I did not do it I could not get in the sorority.




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
How so??? I posted it only to show that the IRC visits ever 6-8 wks I realize the rest of the story relates to what some human rights group gibberish nothing more most of which has just been alleged and not proven I might add. Next time I will make sure I do not use one that contains and HR issues if that will make you happy. I also used it because it was current by date so you could not say well that is old and ask me to furnish more current info so I saved you that step


Human Rights gibberish? I thought, by your posts, that the GC gaurunteed humane treatment. Now it's gibberish?

Current? I'm glad that you are pointing out that NOTHING has changed.




You poo-poo the degredation that these people have been SUBJECTED to and equate it to some foolish VOLUNTARY college initiation.


But I do not think it is degredation while you do and No it was not voluntary it was mandatory if I did not do it I could not get in the sorority.


It's comforting to see that YOU feel fine withholding humane treatment of these people, yes, they are still people, while stating that they are getting GC treatment.

I didn't know you were a woman. The internet is SO annonymous. It's comforting to know that these people went into this internment with the same goals that you did, Welcome to Prisoner Prisoner Prisoner. Hell of a sorority. VERY exclusive. shots, would you like to join that one?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I didn't know you were a woman. The internet is SO annonymous. It's comforting to know that these people went into this internment with the same goals that you did, Welcome to Prisoner Prisoner Prisoner. Hell of a sorority. VERY exclusive. shots, would you like to join that one?

A member of a sorority with a wife no less! No wonder (s)he didnt find it degrading wearing womens underwear.

Declarations of War not forthcoming shots? Why am I not surprised.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

And there in lies the rub, show me a declaration of War on Afghanistan from the United States congress. While you're at it show me a declaration of War on Iraq and on Terror. Good luck
Now if there is no declaration of war there can be no formal end of hostilities.


They used the war powers act to allow our forces to be used there was no formal declaration of war so what you ask is impossible. And you would be wrong when you state there can be no formal end of hostilities. The Korean war was not declared and it ended in the signing of a armistice that ended hostilities.



No, I believe it says "In all criminal prosecutions". The part about the jury having come from the state where the alleged crime was committed belies your founding father's greatest wish that the United States would not assume the role of Global Policeman.


But in this case there will be no jury it will be by military courts marshal under the UCMJ.

I hope you realize you are comparing apples to oranges here because our civilian courts and military courts are not the same although you seem to think they are.




[edit on 7/6/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
They used the war powers act to allow our forces to be used there was no formal declaration of war so what you ask is impossible. And you would be wrong when you state there can be no formal end of hostilities. The Korean war was not declared and it ended in the signing of a armistice that ended hostilities.

The Korean War was not a true war but a police action carried out by the United Nations. The War on Terror is nothing like the Korean war, the United Nations or the Security Council has nothing to do with the so-called War on Terror. The United Nations didnt even authourize the Iraq war, much less the War on Terror.

I ask you, who could represent Terror in any formal ceremony marking the end of hostilities? How could this possibly occur? Im interested in your answer to this.


Originally posted by shots
But in this case there will be no jury it will be by military courts marshal under the UCMJ.

I hope you realize you are comparing apples to oranges here because our civilian courts and military courts are not the same although you seem to think they are.

But they arent soldiers so why are they being court martialed? They are classed as illegal combatants, not soldiers. They are alleged civilian criminals, so why the Court Martials?

[edit on 7/7/06 by subz]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
The Korean War was not a true war but a police action carried out by the United Nations.


I realize it was not a true war but it still ending with the signing of an armistice didn't it?


I ask you, who could represent Terror in any formal ceremony marking the end of hostilities? How could this possibly occur? Im interested in your answer to this.


One of their leaders of course.



But they arent soldiers so why are they being court martialed? They are classed as illegal combatants, not soldiers. They are alleged civilian criminals, so why the Court Martials?


Yes they are go look up the definition of a soldier. Here I will save you the time



Soldier
1. (n.) One who engages in a combat or struggle:
combatant
belligerent
brawler
fighter
militant
warrior
contender
legionnaire



Compliments of my trusty copy of The American Heritage Dictionary


Or if you prefer you can use this




sol·dier (sljr)
n.
1. One who serves in an army.
2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.

Source




[edit on 7/7/2006 by shots]

[edit on 7/7/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I guess I should take it as a compliment, you're only ignored when you've beaten the opposing arguement.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I guess I should take it as a compliment, you're only ignored when you've beaten the opposing arguement.


What are you talking about? I did not see anything in your last post to me that deserved a reply. If you are going to ask a question kindly form it as a question, one word with a ? mark behind it is not a question to me.

Thank you

It is clear what you two are doing, but I will not relent. Gang up all you want, I will stand by my convictions irregardless what you think.




[edit on 7/7/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by intrepid
I guess I should take it as a compliment, you're only ignored when you've beaten the opposing arguement.


What are you talking about? I did not see anything in your last post to me that deserved a reply. If you are going to ask a question kindly form it as a question, one word with a ? mark behind it is not a question to me.


Obfuscation is VERY ugly. I think the points were quite clear:


Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by shots
How so??? I posted it only to show that the IRC visits ever 6-8 wks I realize the rest of the story relates to what some human rights group gibberish nothing more most of which has just been alleged and not proven I might add. Next time I will make sure I do not use one that contains and HR issues if that will make you happy. I also used it because it was current by date so you could not say well that is old and ask me to furnish more current info so I saved you that step


Human Rights gibberish? I thought, by your posts, that the GC gaurunteed humane treatment. Now it's gibberish?

Current? I'm glad that you are pointing out that NOTHING has changed.

You poo-poo the degredation that these people have been SUBJECTED to and equate it to some foolish VOLUNTARY college initiation.



Originally posted by shotsBut I do not think it is degredation while you do and No it was not voluntary it was mandatory if I did not do it I could not get in the sorority.



Originally posted bt intrepidIt's comforting to see that YOU feel fine withholding humane treatment of these people, yes, they are still people, while stating that they are getting GC treatment.

I didn't know you were a woman. The internet is SO annonymous. It's comforting to know that these people went into this internment with the same goals that you did, Welcome to Prisoner Prisoner Prisoner. Hell of a sorority. VERY exclusive. shots, would you like to join that one?



It is clear what you two are doing, but I will not relent. Gang up all you want, I will stand by my convictions irregardless what you think.




[edit on 7/7/2006 by shots]


Well, I'm glad it's clear to you, it wasn't to me. I never u2u'd subz, he probably wouldn't answer anyways, we're not Buds, I'm encouraged that YOU will "stand by your convictions regardless......."

Proves my point quite well. You may want to consider thinking, it gives you a different perspective.

You want a question? Why don't you answer my last post, that I quoted here?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
You want a question? Why don't you answer my last post, that I quoted here?


I will be more then happy to when you put your exact points in the form of a well structured and intelligent question.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I realize it was not a true war but it still ending with the signing of an armistice didn't it?

Only because there was a country that could sign the armistice with another country.


Originally posted by shots
One of their leaders of course.

You arent really showing much of an understanding of how terrorists operate. Al-Qaeda is not a coherent and regimented network. It was created by the FBI to prosecute Osama Bin Laden in absentia for the African embassy bombings using laws originally penned for combating the Mafia. The notion of Al-Qaeda being a regimented network with a clear command structure is not even entertained by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. They admit it is a loose affiliation of militant Islamic jihadis.

So I ask you, if there is no clear cut command structure to even Al-Qaeda who can sign an armistice or an end to hostilities? The IRA couldnt even do this with the British without a splinter cell breaking off to continue their struggle. What makes you think any of these people will honour an armistice?


Originally posted by shots
Yes they are go look up the definition of a soldier. Here I will save you the time

Then why are they denied their rights under the Geneva Conventions and dubbed "illegal combatants"? You cant have it both ways, you cant deny them their rights of treatment as soldiers because you say they are "illegal combatants" and then say they can be detained as PoW's until the war is over. Pick a definition and stick with it goddamnit.


Originally posted by Intrepid
Well, I'm glad it's clear to you, it wasn't to me. I never u2u'd subz, he probably wouldn't answer anyways, we're not Buds, I'm encouraged that YOU will "stand by your convictions regardless......."

Im sorry you feel that way Intrepid. I thought we'd burried our differences a long time ago. I'd most certainly reply to a U2U from yourself. Especially if it were to some how gang up on ol' shots here
JOKING SHOTS!



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

You arent really showing much of an understanding of how terrorists operate. Al-Qaeda is not a coherent and regimented network. It was created by the FBI to prosecute Osama Bin Laden in absentia for the African embassy bombings using laws originally penned for combating the Mafia.


Oh, come on now, bringing in some conspiracy theory will not work here, so let's use known facts from government and major media sources only (no conspiracy sites allowed) if you do not mine.

For starters news.bbc.co.uk...

Or

en.wikipedia.org...



So I ask you, if there is no clear cut command structure to even Al-Qaeda who can sign an armistice or an end to hostilities?


I already told you once, one of their leaders. Pick up any major paper and they will list two names now. Osama bin Laden and Aymen al-Zawahiri either of them will do just fine.



What makes you think any of these people will honour an armistice?


No one can guarantee anything all you can do is hope. How many treaties did it take before the wars between France, Spain and the UK ended their ongoing wars?


Then why are they denied their rights under the Geneva Conventions and dubbed "illegal combatants"? You cant have it both ways, you cant deny them their rights of treatment as soldiers because you say they are "illegal combatants" and then say they can be detained as PoW's until the war is over.


Excuse me??? I think you have me confused with someone else I never called them "illegal combatants" that would be you. As for their treatment they are being afforded treatment under the Geneva convention In fact I would dare say they are getting better treatment then most other countries would afford them yes they even have air conditioning imagine that




Pick a definition and stick with it goddamnit.


Hey it is not me changing the definitions that would be you, so you may want to follow your own suggestion.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Oh, come on now, bringing in some conspiracy theory will not work here, so let's use known facts from government and major media sources only (no conspiracy sites allowed) if you do not mine.

And We Though this was a Conspiracy Forum Board.

Dang!

I guess We were wrong!

So - you trust the so-called Known Facts from the Goverments and Major (and Might I add) Corporate Media, which are basicly owned by the same people that own the Goverment? And why exactly do you think they are telling Us the Truth?

Well I will tell you something - I have this Hunch about you, that you are not here just to "Debate", but to spread certain propaganda, and I also think that you are getting payed for that. Now we all know for a Fact, that there are several Undercover agents in the Media and on the popular Forum boards such as this - and I have you also in my Sights.

Well that is just My Humble Opinion to which I have every right and as a member of this board, I also have the priviledge to share it with everybody.

Now Me, Myself and I do not Buy any of that Goverment-Sponsored-Media-Spreading-Crap, how Al-Qaeda - or should I say Al-CIA-DUH is what they claim to be. Now where is this Osama Been Ladeen Hidin'? I mean, that is almost Hilarous! To me Osama is like Emmanuel Goldstein from Orwell's masterpiece 1984:


Two Minutes Hate

In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Two Minutes Hate is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must watch a film depicting The Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them and the principles of democracy.

The film and its accompanying auditory and visual cues (which include a grinding noise that Orwell describes as "of some monstrous machine running without oil") are a form of brainwashing to Party members, attempting to whip them into a frenzy of hatred and loathing for Emmanuel Goldstein and the current enemy superstate.

Anything Familiar?

Well I guess not for you and others like yourself.


Al-Qaeda, the Mythic Enemy from Le Figaro

From then on the demonization of al-Qaeda is very practical. A superb media invention, security haute couture label, consensual poster for the bounty-hunters of another age, a crude, but effective, propaganda: if al-Qaeda didn't exist, it would have to be invented. Since September 11, 2001 the al-Qaeda label has surreptitiously slid from designating a criminal band with Bin Laden at their head, to specifying a high-tech organization, to finally qualifying a planetary network: al-Qaeda has "CNNized" itself, like the al-Jezira channel which serves its communications. Al-Qaeda is everywhere, therefore, nowhere. Just as the hidden Imam, Bin Laden, simultaneously dead and alive, is behind every unexplained bomb explosion. Fortunately, his organization is there to give sense to all the world's disorders.

The phantasm of a planetary, pyramidal al-Qaeda, that of a new orchestration or of an International similar in all respects to Comintern's, is in the process of justifying the biggest American military-strategic redeployment effected since the end of the Second World War. The endless war against terror has replaced the war against the Communist monster. Consequently, it's not surprising to see old U.S.S.R. experts redeploying their old scholasticism on the pretext of an Islamist violence about which they know nothing, applying anachronistic Kremlinology schemas to it. These American neo-conservative ideological go-betweens stand guard on the old continent. For the American Empire, it's important that the al-Qaeda mythology persist. To survive, the empire needs an enemy to its measure and to make war on: Endless War.

So - why would a bunch of Islamic Terrorists attack WTC to trigger and Endless War against them, just to make the American Empire MORE Strong?



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I agree completely with SoulJah. This is exactly like 1984. Right down to the 'Terrorists Handbook" which is supposed to instruct Al Quaida to lie cheat steal and spit on the baby Jesus. All to get us in a furious rage. I guess it's working for those who can't see the forest for the trees.

Edit: Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

(lets forget that It was Oceania that built Eurasia)

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Oh, come on now, bringing in some conspiracy theory will not work here, so let's use known facts from government and major media sources only (no conspiracy sites allowed) if you do not mine.

For starters news.bbc.co.uk...

Or

en.wikipedia.org...

It is not a conspiracy theory shots. I am intrigued that you forwarded a link to the BBC. Have you seen the BBC's brilliant three-part documentary called "The Power of Nightmares - The Rise of the Politics of Fear"? In the third episode they detail how Al-Qaeda was literally created by the FBI to fit the legal framework of trying Osama Bin Laden in absentia based on laws authoured to combat the mafia.

To try Bin Laden in absentia for the African embassy bombings the FBI had to prove that Bin Laden was the head of an organisation that you could become a member of. That way he could be tied to the organisation and held criminally responsible for all of their actions. The "corroborating" evidence used by the FBI to construct Al-Qaeda around Bin Laden was an ex-associate of Bin Laden's called Jamal al-Fadl. Al-Fadl was on the run from Bin Laden after stealing money from him and had been passed around various intelligence agencies across the globe, none of whom were interested in what he had to say due to his dubious intentions.

The FBI paid al-Fadl tens of thousands of American tax payers money and entered him in the Federal Witness Protection Program. He then told them exactly what they wanted to hear regarding Osama and his rag-tag bunch of disparate Jihadis.

I highly recommend you watch the series and evaluate your stance on the matter.

The Power of Nightmares


Originally posted by shots
I already told you once, one of their leaders. Pick up any major paper and they will list two names now. Osama bin Laden and Aymen al-Zawahiri either of them will do just fine.

So its only a war on Al-Qaeda? Dont you remember Osama Bin Laden's offer of a truce that was flatly rejected by your President? Are you even following current affairs any more? If they will do just fine why were they rebuffed?


Originally posted by shots
No one can guarantee anything all you can do is hope. How many treaties did it take before the wars between France, Spain and the UK ended their ongoing wars?

Sorry shots but you are highly deluded. The offer of a truce with Al-Qaeda was rejected by your government.


Originally posted by shots
Excuse me??? I think you have me confused with someone else I never called them "illegal combatants" that would be you. As for their treatment they are being afforded treatment under the Geneva convention In fact I would dare say they are getting better treatment then most other countries would afford them yes they even have air conditioning imagine that

Again you are deluding yourself here shots.


The camp has drawn strong criticism both in the U.S. and world-wide for its detainment of prisoners without trial, and allegations of torture. Many detainees are held by the United States to be illegal combatants, and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Wiki on Gitmo

So you disagree with the United States government's classification of these detainees as "illegal combatants" and henceforth not afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions? Are you actually differing from the US government hymn sheet for the first time I have ever seen?


Originally posted by shots
Hey it is not me changing the definitions that would be you, so you may want to follow your own suggestion

If I wrongly implied that you subscribed to the US government's definitions of what those detained in Gitmo are classed as then I apologize. You must admit its an easy mistake to make though



Originally posted by Souljah
Well I will tell you something - I have this Hunch about you, that you are not here just to "Debate", but to spread certain propaganda, and I also think that you are getting payed for that. Now we all know for a Fact, that there are several Undercover agents in the Media and on the popular Forum boards such as this - and I have you also in my Sights.

To be quite frank Souljah, I doubt he is a paid propagandist because he isnt very consistent and not very convincing. If I were a political entity and paid for this sort of propaganda I'd be asking for my money back.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Sorry shots but you are highly deluded. The offer of a truce with Al-Qaeda was rejected by your government.



Of course it was. They made the offer while making threats. It was not a genuine offer, something you failed to see.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Of course it was. They made the offer while making threats. It was not a genuine offer, something you failed to see.

Oh you mean like "you've got 48hrs to leave the country or you'll be invaded"?



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Oh you mean like "you've got 48hrs to leave the country or you'll be invaded"?


Of course not. More like make this peace treaty or we will attack and kill more Americans in the US or perhaps Australia, which is not a genuine offer.

Only a fool would take an offer like that serious. Would you under those conditions? If the answer is yes you would be a fool.

[edit on 7/8/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by intrepid
You want a question? Why don't you answer my last post, that I quoted here?


I will be more then happy to when you put your exact points in the form of a well structured and intelligent question.


Stands on one foot, faces north, looks down, puts left hand on head.

*wonders if I'll still get a reply?*


Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by shots
How so??? I posted it only to show that the IRC visits ever 6-8 wks I realize the rest of the story relates to what some human rights group gibberish nothing more most of which has just been alleged and not proven I might add. Next time I will make sure I do not use one that contains and HR issues if that will make you happy. I also used it because it was current by date so you could not say well that is old and ask me to furnish more current info so I saved you that step


Human Rights gibberish? I thought, by your posts, that the GC gaurunteed humane treatment. Now it's gibberish?

Current? I'm glad that you are pointing out that NOTHING has changed.




You poo-poo the degredation that these people have been SUBJECTED to and equate it to some foolish VOLUNTARY college initiation.


But I do not think it is degredation while you do and No it was not voluntary it was mandatory if I did not do it I could not get in the sorority.


It's comforting to see that YOU feel fine withholding humane treatment of these people, yes, they are still people, while stating that they are getting GC treatment.

I didn't know you were a woman. The internet is SO annonymous. It's comforting to know that these people went into this internment with the same goals that you did, Welcome to Prisoner Prisoner Prisoner. Hell of a sorority. VERY exclusive. shots, would you like to join that one?


YOU stated that the GC ONLY gaurunteed humane treatment. I showed that they were denied that.

FOR THE THIRD TIME, in small words, Do.... you.... think.... that.... the.... GC.... statutes.... have.... been.... granted.... to..... these.... detainees?....

Was that slow enough?

Oh, and don't go on about "a speedy trial", you were the one that brought up the GC to start with.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
FOR THE THIRD TIME, in small words, Do.... you.... think.... that.... the.... GC.... statutes.... have.... been.... granted.... to..... these.... detainees?....

Was that slow enough?

Oh, and don't go on about "a speedy trial", you were the one that brought up the GC to start with.


Yes I do think they have been granted the rights they are entitled too. I would also venture to guess the treatment they are getting from the US is also under far superior conditions then if they were held by Afgans or Iraqis.

As for the speedy trial I did not bring that up that was subz not me


[edit on 7/9/2006 by shots]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join